Process Biochemistry 42 (2007) 5764 www.elsevier.

com/locate/procbio

The energy balance in farm scale anaerobic digestion of crop residues at 1137 8C
rnsson, Bo Mattiasson Irene Bohn *, Lovisa Bjo
Department of Biotechnology, Lund University, Box 124, 22100 Lund, Sweden Received 15 March 2006; accepted 9 July 2006

Abstract Crop residues can be used for biogas production in farm scale reactors. Use of a process temperature below mesophilic conditions reduces the need for heating as well as investment and operating costs, although it may also reduce the methane yield. In the present study the effect of temperature on net energy output was studied using sugar beet tops and straw as substrates for two pilot-scale reactors. Digestion was found to be stable down to 11 8C and optimal methane yield was obtained at 30 8C. The methane yield and process performance was studied at 15 8C and 30 8C as organic loading rates were increased. It was found that the highest net energy production would be achieved at 30 8C with a loading rate of 3.3 kg VS m3 day1. Running a low-cost process at ambient temperatures would give a net energy output of 60% of that obtained at 30 8C. # 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anaerobic digestion; Crop residues; Energy balance; Farm-scale; Low temperature; Pilot-scale

1. Introduction Agricultural residues, including manure and energy crops, represent an important source of biomass that can serve as a substrate in anaerobic digestion, resulting in the production of renewable energy. Within EU, these types of biomasses could amount to 1545 million tonnes per year, if 760 tonnes of energy crops were produced each year [1]. Sugar beet tops are one example of such a crop residue, of which quite a million tonnes is produced each year in Sweden alone [2]. In some parts of Sweden on-farm production of biogas from crop residues is preferable to digestion in centralized plants because the production of these substrates is distributed at low density over wide areas [3]. In such cases digestion of the biomass on the farm reduces the transport needs. Plant nutrients are retained in the digested residue, making it valuable as fertilizer [4,5]. Recycling the residues as biofertilizers thus adds value to the biogas system. The use of biofertilizers is facilitated when digestion is restricted to the farm because it reduces the risk for spreading of plant diseases, which may be a problem for a centralized biogas plant [2]. Traditionally it is primarily manure that is digested in farm-scale digesters. However, in Germany,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 46 222 8347; fax: +46 46 222 4713. E-mail address: irene.bohn@biotek.lu.se (I. Bohn). 1359-5113/$ see front matter # 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2006.07.013

where substantial subsidies are provided for electricity produced from biogas which is produced on a farm scale, energy crops are used as co-substrates in more than 90% of the digesters to increase the gas yield [6]. High investment costs [1] and high operating costs and costs of producing and handling the substrate [7] limit and may possibly preclude the feasibility of farm scale digestion in Sweden unless subsidizes are provided. Energy prices in Sweden are low and one cannot count on receiving subsidies, making a highly cost-efcient system important. Soliddigestion processes have been found to be cost-effective for the farm-scale digestion of energy crops and of crop residues with a high content of solids, [6,7]. However, the methane yield obtained may be lower due to inefcient degradation [8]. Highsolid digestion also eliminates the possibility of co-digestion with liquid manure. Another possibility of decreasing costs is that of operating the process at low temperatures. In farm-scale digestion under mesophilic conditions up to 1/3 of the energy produced may be needed for heating [9], and operating at ambient or decreased temperature rather than heating the system has been found to reduce investment costs and maintenance and operation costs [1012]. Low-cost systems operated at temperatures below mesophilic conditions have shown to be successful in on-farm manure treatment, although the degradation efciency achieved is lower and the retention times required are higher than in mesophilic systems [1214].

58

I. Bohn et al. / Process Biochemistry 42 (2007) 5764 lactic acid and volatile fatty acids (VFAs), respectively, for the substrate that was prepared during months 1724 is shown in Table 1.

2.3. Operation of the pilot-scale reactors

The reactors were initially inoculated with digestate from an unheated nnestad, Sweden). The reactors were anaerobic digester fed with cow manure (O fed semicontinuously, either twice a week or once a day. During the startup period (months 14) the operational temperature of both reactors was 20 2 8C. During months 514 the temperature in reactor 1 was slowly decreased to 11 8C, whereas in reactor 2 it was gradually increased to 37 8C. During this period the reactors were fed 70 l of substrate twice a week, resulting in an average organic loading rate (OLR) of 0.50.6 kg VS m3 day1 (where m3 refers to the active reactor volume) and a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 90 days (Table 2). The substrate from harvest year 1 was used until month 11, and the substrate from harvest year 2 was used during the rest of the experiment. Until month 15, the amount of substrate fed was controlled by the level indicator, and the amount of efuent was measured by timing the pump. During month 15 an extra tank equipped with a weighing cell (shown in Fig. 1) was installed, allowing the amount of substrate fed to be controlled by weight, although the amount of efuent emptied from the reactor was still measured by timing. During months 1624 the operational temperatures were set to 15 8C and 30 8C for reactor 1 and 2, respectively. During month 16 the reactors were fed 70 l of substrate twice a week. During month 1724 the reactors were fed once a day and OLRs from 1 to 4 kg VS m3 day1 was applied to determine the maximum OLRs at 15 8C and 30 8C, respectively (Table 2). The initial OLR for this period was 1 kg VS m3 day1 for both reactors. This was increased to 2.1, but since reactor 1 was overloaded at this OLR, the amount was decreased to 1.6 for this reactor, which was then run at this OLR for the rest of the experiment. The OLR for reactor 2 was rst increased to 3.3 kg VS m3 day1 and then to 4.1 kg VS m3 day1 (Table 2).

Fig. 1. Schematic view of the pilot-scale reactor (reactor 2) after installation of the new feeding system, where a weighing cell is used to control the amount of feeding. 1: heating coil in the reactor, 2: pump for feeding and circulation, 3: pump for feeding, 4: cutting mixer for preparation of the substrate, 5: weighing cell for control of the amount of slurry fed to the reactor.

In the present study the effects of temperature on the methane production rate and methane yield in the digestion of straw and sugar beet tops were investigated. The energy output was compared with the energy input to determine the temperature at which the best energy balance could be achieved. The experimental results were obtained in pilotscale reactors, whereas the energy balances were calculated both for the pilot scale reactors and for theoretical examples of farm-scale systems.
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Pilot-scale reactors
The study was performed in two identical reactor tanks, each with an active volume of 1.8 m3 and a total volume of 2.2 m3, that were stirred continuously. The tanks were constructed of stainless steel (6 mm) and were insulated by a 100 mm layer of mineral wool. They were equipped with eccentric screw pumps teborg) used for feeding and recirculation, and with stirrers (AB TELFA, Go (Mamic OY, Finland), pH probes (MiniCHEM, TPS, Australia), temperature regulation, slurry-level indicators and gas volume meters (Gallus, G1.6 1R, Euromekanik AB, Sweden). The temperature of the one reactor (reactor 1) was regulated by a heat exchanger, whereas the temperature of the other (reactor 2) was regulated by a heating coil placed in the bottom and the lower part of the walls of the reactor. Fig. 1 shows a schematic view of reactor 2.

2.4. Monitoring the process

The data on temperature, pH, volume of gas produced and energy input for heating (only for reactor 2) was monitored on-line using the PLC system SLC 5/05 with RSLogix 500 as software (Rockwell Automation) for data collection and Citect 5 (Autic System AB, Landskrona, Sweden) as the Human Machine Interface software. The control system was also used to control the feeding and temperature. The methane content of the biogas produced was measured on-line (but not continuously) using a methane detector based on infrared light absorption (Simrad stra Fro lunda, Sweden). GD10 IR Gas Detector, Safetech HB, Va The alkalinity and the concentration of lactic acid and of VFAs (acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid and valeric acid) were measured off-line. Sampling rnsson et al. [15], except that and analysis were carried out as described by Bjo the alkalinity was measured using a Scott Titroline titrator (Tillquist, Sundbyberg, Sweden). VS and TS were analyzed as described in APHA [16]. From the alkalinity that was measured, a was calculated as the difference between total alkalinity and partial alkalinity divided by the partial alkalinity [17]. A value of a of less than 1 indicates a stable process, whereas a value above 1 is a sign of instability [18].

2.2. Substrate
The substrate consisted of sugar beet tops that were ensiled on a bedding of wheat straw and were stored in bunker silos. For the substrate from harvest year 1, sugar beet tops together with the straw, which was used as bedding, was used. For the substrate from the harvest year 2 only sugar beet tops were used, since the straw had decomposed during storage, so that the methane potential of the straw was considered to be too low. The substrate was prepared once a week by mixing beet tops and straw (if added) with water to obtain a slurry with a volatile solids (VS) content of 4.25.6%. The average content of total solids (TS), VS,

2.5. Energy consumption

2.5.1. Energy for heating During operation of the pilot scale reactors, the energy consumed by the heating of reactor 2 was monitored. The energy consumption at each loading rate was plotted against the difference in temperature between the reactor and

Table 1 Average values and standard deviations (shown in brackets) for the TS, VS, lactic acid and VFA content of the feed slurry prepared for month 1724 TS (%) 6.4 (0.54) VS (%) 4.7 (0.38) Lactic acid (g l1) 2.9 (1.20) Acetic acid (g l1) 4.0 (0.86) Propionic acid (g l1) 2.3 (0.54) Butyric acid (g l1) 1.7 (0.61) Valeric acid (g l1) 1.4 (0.72)

I. Bohn et al. / Process Biochemistry 42 (2007) 5764 Table 2 Operational temperature, OLR and HRT Time (month) Harvest (year) TS (%) VS (%) OLR (kgVS m3 day1) HRT (days) Temperature (8C) Reactor1 511 1214 16 1724 2001 2002 2002 2002 7.3 (0.52) 6.2 (0.58) 5.7 (0.22) 6.4 (0.54) 5.6 (0.34) 4.5 (0.45) 4.2 (0.19) 4.7 (0.38) 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.6 2.1 3.3 4.1 90 90 90 45 30 23 15 11 1320 1112 15 15 15 15

59

Reactor2 2030 3237 30 30 30 30 30

Standard deviations for TS and VS are shown in brackets. the outside. A linear regression was performed and the slope obtained represented the total energy needed for heating as a function of the temperature. The slopes obtained for the different loading rates were plotted against the loading rate resulting in a second linear regression. The resulting equation was used to estimate the energy needed for heating the substrate and the amount of heat lost from the reactor tank. In addition, the amount of energy theoretically needed for heating the reactor tank and the substrate was calculated using the method of Dalemo [19]. The heat conductivity was calculated using 17 W m1 K1 and 0.55 W m1 K1 as the thermal conductivity coefcients for stainless steel and mineral wool, respectively, using 0.04 W m2 K1 as the heat transfer coefcient to account for heat transfer from the outer wall to the outside air [20]. On the basis of this, the overall heat conductivity was calculated to 0.54 W m2 K1 for the pilot-scale reactor and 0.27 for the farm-scale reactor. An outside temperature of 8 8C, which is the annual average outdoor temperature in Southern Sweden, was assumed. A substrate temperature of 15 8C and a TS of 6.4% were used in calculating the energy needed to heat the substrate. The reason for a higher temperature being set for the substrate than for the average outside temperature was that the substrate was mixed prior to feeding to obtain a homogeneous slurry, which increased the temperature of the substrate. 2.5.2. Additional energy consumption Values for the power consumption of the stirrers, pumps and mixers were measured on one occasion during operation of the pilot-scale reactors (Table 3). The energy consumption for stirring and feeding was then calculated on the basis of the measured values for the power consumption and on knowledge of the time intervals during which the stirrers and mixers were in operation. For convenience, all calculations regarding the energy balance were based on assuming TS and VS concentrations of 6.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The methane yields used were those obtained experimentally. 2.5.3. Theoretical farm-scale reactors Energy balances for two theoretical scenarios of farm-scale reactors were calculated using gures based on the work with the pilot scale reactors. One scenario concerns a farm-scale reactor system similar to that used in the pilotscale reactors, the other scenario concerns a very simple digester system. 2.5.4. A farm-scale reactor similar to the pilot-scale reactors The size of the farm-scale reactor was determined on the basis of the availability of the substrate and the assumed loading rate. At a farm some 150 ha in size, about 85.7 tonnes of VS from sugar beet tops may be estimated to be used for anaerobic digestion each year [7]. Operating the reactor 360 days a year at an average OLR of 1 kg VS m3 day1 requires an active reactor volume of 240 m3 and a total volume of 260 m3. Such a reactor would have a total surface area of 220 m2. The value for the energy consumption required for stirring was obtained from an existing biogas reactor treating crop residues and agricultural waste [21]. There was assumed to be a 200 mm layer of mineral wool for insulation of the reactor. All the other parameters were assumed to be the same as for the pilot scale reactor (Table 3). 2.5.5. A simple farm scale reactor for operation at ambient temperature The gures for the simple farm-scale reactor were based on using an existing concrete manure tank equipped with the necessary pumps and a gas-tight cover. This reactor was assumed to operate at an OLR of 0.5 kg VS m3 day1 during the months when the temperature in the reactor tank was 11 8C or higher, which for southern Sweden is 5 months a year. The major part of the tank was assumed to be underground. Under such conditions the temperature of the slurry would follow the soil temperature [22]. The operational temperature assumed was based on the temperature as measured in the soil at a depth of 1 m [23], together with measurements of the temperature of the unheated digester where the inoculum used for the pilot-scale reactors was taken from (Table 4). The values for the methane yields were obtained from results of the pilot-scale reactors for an OLR of 0.5 kg VS m3 day1 at the different temperatures.

Table 3 Parameters for the pilot-scale reactors and the farm-scale reactor Pilot scale reactor Active volume (m3) Total volume (m3) Surface (m2)a Insulation (mm) Thermal conductivitya Substrate temperature (8C) VS of substrate (%) TS of substrate (%) Energy consumption Stirrer (W) Pump for recirculation (W) Pump for feed slurry (W) Preparation of feed slurry (k Wh tVS1)
a b

Farm scale reactor 240 260 220 200 0.27 15 4.7 6.4 2400b 550 840 90

1.8 2.2 8.9 100 0.54 15 4.7 6.4 110 550 840 90

3. Results 3.1. Operation of the pilot scale reactors Fig. 2 shows the methane yield obtained for the reactors at different temperatures during months 514 at OLRs of 0.5 0.6 kg VS m3 day1. Results of between 11 8C and 18 8C were obtained with reactor 1 and of between 20 8C and 37 8C with reactor 2. Results from 11 8C, 12 8C and 3235 8C were obtained with the substrate from the year-2 harvest, whereas the

Calculated value. Stirrer only running half the time. The value is estimated on the basis of m et al. [21]. information presented in Edstro

60

I. Bohn et al. / Process Biochemistry 42 (2007) 5764 Methane production rate (m3 CH4 m3 day1)

Table 4 Temperatures in an unheated farm-scale reactor during the course of a year Temperature (8C) Soil (at 1 m depth)a January February March April May June July August September October November December
a b

Manure tankb

Propionic acid (g l1)

Maximum

4 4 5 3 9 11 15 17 14 13 8 4

79 n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. 1720 1720 1517 1214 n.m. n.m.

11 17 18 15 13

Methane yield (m3 CH4 kg VS1)

0.11 0.17 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.17 0.14 0.11 0.20 0.77 2.28 3.03 0.09 0.25 1.01 1.97 0.07 0.37 2.30 1.10 0.32 0.39 1.01 0.91a 0.27 0.31 0.59 0.46 0.28 0.72 3.11 2.74

Monthly average as calculated from Nimmermark [23]. nnestad, Measured data from an unheated digester tank for cow manure (O Sweden).

Maximum

Minimum

Maximum

0.24 0.22 0.23 0.27 0.32 Reactor 2 0.5 1.0 2.1 3.3 4.1
b a

0.32 0.37 0.32 0.32 1.04a Increasing concentration during the period. Decreasing concentration during the period. 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.0 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.2 b

other results was obtained with the substrate from the year-1 harvest. The yield increased with the temperature and the highest yield obtained was 0.40 m3 CH4 kg VS1 at 30 8C. At 11 8C, the yield was only one-third of that obtained at 30 8C. At temperatures above 30 8C the yield decreased. During months 514, the operation of both reactors was stable, although some accumulation of VFAs occurred. In reactor 2, the pH increased with increasing temperature from pH 7.3 at 24 8C to 7.6 at 37 8C. At temperatures below 30 8C, the acetic acid concentration was generally below 0.05 g l1, but it occasionally increased up to a level of 0.20 g l1. The concentration of propionic acid varied between 0.03 and 0.22 g l1. At 30 8C and higher, acetic acid and propionic acid were rarely detected, and then usually at concentrations of less than 0.10 g l1. In

Minimum

Maximum

Acetic acid (g l1)

Minimum

Table 5 Monitored parameters of the biological process

Minimum

Fig. 2. Methane yield obtained at different temperatures at an OLR of 0.5 0.6 kg VS m3 day1 and an HRT of 90 days. Results for 1118 8C were obtained with reactor 1 and results for 2037 8C with reactor 2. Results for 11 8C, 12 8C and 3227 8C were obtained with the substrate from harvest year 2. The other results were obtained with the substrate from harvest year 1. The error bars show the standard deviations; n = 2 for 18 8C, 22 8C, 24 8C, 26 8C, 27 8C, 32 8C, 35 8C and 37 8C; n = 3 for 12 8C and 28 8C; n = 4 for 13 8C, 25 8C, and 30 8C; n = 5 for 14 8C; n = 6 for 20 8C; n = 7 for 11 8C and n = 8 for 17 8C.

OLR (kg VS m3 day1)

Reactor 1 0.5 1.0 1.6 2.1

7.4 7.4 7.1 7.2

pH

7.5 7.5 7.2 7.5 b

0 0 0.02 0.04 1.44

0.08 0.08 0.78 0.60 3.16a

0 0 0.01 0.02 0.31

0.04 0.01 0.25 0.11 0.71a

0.39 0.32 0.32 0.29 0.24

0.18 0.33 0.66 0.98 0.97

Assumed operational temperature

I. Bohn et al. / Process Biochemistry 42 (2007) 5764

61

reactor 1, the pH remained between 7.2 and 7.5 at temperatures of 1711 8C. At temperatures of 16 8C and above, the concentrations of acetic acid and of propionic acid were below 0.10 g l1 and 0.13 g l1, respectively. At temperatures of 15 8C and below, the acetic acid and the propionic acid concentrations were in the range of 0.040.35 g l1 and 0.10 0.38 g l1, respectively. Table 5 shows the results of increasing the OLR at operational temperatures of 15 8C and 30 8C, respectively, obtained during months 1624. The reasons for higher values being obtained in reactor 1 for acetic acid and a at an OLR of 1.6 kg VS m3 day1 than for an OLR of 2.1 kg VS m3 day1 was that the reactor was run rst at the higher loading rate. The optimal gas production rates were obtained at the highest loading rates tested which were 4.1 kg VS m3 day1 for reactor 2 (30 8C) and 2.1 kg VS m3 day1 for reactor 1 (15 8C). However, there were signs of instability at these loading rates since acetic acid and propionic acid accumulated, resulting in a decrease in pH and an increase in a (Table 5). The optimal loading rates were therefore found to be 1.6 kg VS m3 day1 for reactor 1 and 3.3 kg VS m3 day1 for reactor 2. For reactor 1, the methane yield decreased with increasing OLR. For reactor 2, the methane yield decreased slightly for OLRs higher than 0.5 kg VS m3 day1, and also when the reactor was overloaded at 4.1 kg VS m3 day1, but at loading rates of 13.3 kg VS m3 day1 the yield was fairly constant. 3.2. Energy balances The energy input and the energy output for the pilot scale reactors are shown in Fig. 3. The energy input is divided into the energy needed for feeding, heating and stirring, respectively. The energy needed for heating the substrate and the digester tank was estimated from the monitored values and compared to the calculated values. The monitored values, however, were found to be unreasonably high, since the energy needed for heating the substrate was 1.44 times as high as the calculated value and the energy needed for heating the tank was 5.5 times as high as the calculated value. Because, as taken up in the discussion, the heat losses from the pilot-scale reactors appeared unnecessarily high, and the calculated values were considered to be more realistic, the latter values were used. The

energy for feeding includes preparation of the substrate slurry, pumping of the substrate and the efuent, and recirculation of the reactor slurry before and after feeding. Since for OLRs at 1 4 kg VS m3 day1 feeding occurred once a day, the energy input for preparing and feeding the substrate only decreased slightly for an increase in OLR. The energy needed for heating and for stirring per tonne of VS increased with a decrease in OLR since HRT increased with a decrease in OLR. Because of the high energy consumption that stirring and heating required, the energy balance at an operational temperature of 30 8C is negative for OLRs of 1 and 0.5 kg VS m3 day1, whereas at an operational temperature of 15 8C it is negative at all OLRs. Fig. 4 shows the energy balance calculated for a theoretical farm-scale system in which the reactors are similar to those used in the pilot-scale experiment but are scaled up and have improved insulation. For this scenario all the energy balances are positive with energy inputs ranging from 1926% of the energy produced. For an operational temperature of 30 8C, the best net energy production of 10 GJ tonne (t) VS1 is obtained at 0.5 kg VS m3 day1. At OLRs of 13.1 kg VS m3 day1 net energy production is in the range of 8.39.2 GJ tVS1. At these OLRs the energy needed for heating and stirring per tonne of VS decreases to only a slight extent since most of the energy needed for heating is required for heating the substrate. At the same time the yield is fairly constant. For an operational temperature of 15 8C both the energy input and the energy output decreases proportionally with the HRT, resulting in an energy need of 2023% of the energy produced for all OLRs. Since the methane yield is highest for the lowest OLR (0.5 kg VS m3 day1), the energy balance is best for this OLR, although the net energy output is only 65% of that obtained at 30 8C at the same loading rate. Fig. 5 shows the energy production each month and the energy consumption, which is constant, for a simple farm-scale system run at ambient temperatures and at an OLR of 0.5 kg VS m3 day1. The process is assumed to be active during June through October. The energy output increases with increasing slurry temperature. The best energy balance is obtained in August when there is a net energy production of 9.3 GJ tVS1. The average net energy production is 5.8 GJ tVS1. The energy consumption is 1331% of the energy produced with an average of 21%.

Fig. 3. The measured energy production and the calculated energy consumption for the pilot-scale reactors at different OLRs at 15 8C (A) and 30 8C (B) shown as the energy production ( ) and the energy input for pretreatment and feeding of the substrate (&), for heating ( ) and for stirring (&).

62

I. Bohn et al. / Process Biochemistry 42 (2007) 5764

Fig. 4. Energy production and energy consumption for a theoretical example of a farm-scale reactor built in a design similar to that of the pilot-scale reactors at different OLRs at 15 8C (A) and 30 8C (B) shown as the energy production ( ) and the energy input for pretreatment and feeding of the substrate (&), for heating ( ) and for stirring (&).

Fig. 5. Energy production per tonne of VS fed for each month, energy consumption for pretreatment and feeding of the substrate () and total energy consumption for stirring and handling of the substrate (- - -) for a simple unheated farm-scale digester operated at ambient temperatures at 0.5 kg VS m3 day1.

4. Discussion 4.1. Effect of temperature on methane yield At OLRs of 0.50.6 kg VS m3 day1, the methane yield was found to be less when the reactor temperature was lower. The methane yield was highest at 30 8C, this temperature being chosen, therefore, for the further experiments. Although the somewhat lower methane yield at 3237 8C might be thought to be an effect of the change in substrate, this seemed not to be the case, since the methane yield obtained using the substrate from the harvest year 2 at 30 8C was basically the same as when using the substrate from the harvest year 1. The nding that the

yields obtained at 30 8C and at 37 8C are similar has also been reported earlier for the digestion of cow manure at a retention time below 20 days [24] and of swine manure at a retention time of 100 days [12]. Later, when reactor 1 was operated at 15 8C and reactor 2 at 30 8C, the yield for reactor 1 was found to be less than two-thirds the yield for 30 8C at the lowest OLR (0.5 kg VS m3 day1). Although the substrate was apparently not fully utilized at 15 8C, the concentrations of acetic acid and propionic acid remained below 0.30 and 0.20 g l1, respectively, indicating that the initial substrate hydrolysis was limiting the production of methane. The methane yield from fruit and vegetable waste [25] and from cow manure [26] has also been found to decrease by 2035% when temperatures are decreased from 37 8C to 20 8C. On the other hand, the methane yield from swine manure was only 25% lower at 20 8C than at 30 8C [27] and COD-removal from slaughterhouse waste only decreased from 91% at 30 8C to 84% at 20 8C [28]. This suggests that at temperatures above 20 8C the methane yield is less affected by the temperature when a large part of the carbon in the substrates is present as fat, than when the major part of the carbon is present as carbohydrates. This has also been shown in batch experiments [27]. Substrates other than crop residues may thus be more suitable for degradation at low temperature. At higher OLRs and lower HRTs, methanogenesis was found to be limiting in reactor 1, as shown by the accumulation of acetic and propionic acid. Stirring has been shown earlier to inhibit methanogenesis at high loading rates [29]. High methane yield from swine manure during anaerobic sequencing-batch digestion has been obtained [30]. The sequencingbatch technique involves less stirring, which may result in less inhibition of the methanogenesis and better retention of solids. This technique may also be suitable, therefore, for the digestion of crop residues. For substrates with a high content of bers an increased retention of solids together with decreased stirring

I. Bohn et al. / Process Biochemistry 42 (2007) 5764

63

may lead to crust formation, however [21], a matter which should be borne in mind. 4.2. Energy balances Although the energy balance of a pilot scale reactor cannot be expected to adequately reect conditions present in a full-scale reactor, it was calculated because empirical values were available. Since the values used for heating and for stirring were found to be unrealistically high for such a pilot scale system they were adjusted to a level appropriate for a farm-scale system. The power consumption of the stirrer for a farm scale reactor with 450 m3 sludge volume has found earlier to be between 1700 W and 4500 W resulting in a maximum energy consumption of 10 W per m3 of reactor volume [21]. For the pilot scale reactors in the present study, the corresponding energy consumption was 60 W m3. The high energy input for stirring in this pilot-scale reactor can be explained by the difculties in obtaining equipment with a reasonable level of energy consumption for a pilot-scale reactor of the size involved. The energy required for pumping was 1 MJ m3 substrate, which is similar to what has been observed for a farmscale system [21]. The monitored values for the energy consumption for heating was compared with the calculated energy needs. The energy needed to heat the substrate was found to be 1.44 times as high as the theoretical value for it. This can be thought to be due to heat being lost by the hot water pipes leading to the reactor. This appears likely since the boiler supplying the hot water was located at a considerable distance from the reactor, and also since pipes were poorly insulated. If this is assumed to be the case, part of the high loss of heat from the reactor determined in monitoring must have been caused by a loss of heat from the pipes. This would make the loss of heat from the reactor about 3.8 times as high as that which was calculated. The considerable loss of heat from the reactor tank can be explained in terms of thermal bridges, such as at the points where the stirrer and the level indicator were located and the loss of heat through the reactor pipes, which were less well insulated than the rest of the reactor was. Also, the heat transfer from the heating coil to the slurry has shown to decrease severely due to sedimentation when the heating coils are placed in the bottom of the reactor [31]. A similar problem may be adding to the excess loss of heat in the pilot scale reactors. The energy needed by different mesophilic farm-scale systems for heating, expressed as a percentage of the total energy production, has been determined by estimation or calculation to be 1112% for an HRT of 20 days [32], 15% for an HRT of 47 days and an ORL 2.6 kg VS/m3 day [21] and 30% for an OLR of 3 kg VS/m3 day [33]. These values are similar to those obtained by calculation in the present study, but lower than the values monitored for the pilot scale reactors. In an earlier example of this sort, however, the amount of the methane produced that was used internally for heating the process was shown to be as high as 50% [12]. Both this and the results of the present study suggest that reactors may not always be as well insulated as they are often assumed to be.

Since the methane yield was lower at 15 8C than at 30 8C, the former temperature provided a poorer energy balance at each of the OLRs than the latter temperature did, even though less energy was needed for heating. The difference in energy balance increased as the loading rate increased. The amount of energy needed in the form of electricity (preparing and feeding) should be borne in mind here particularly, since 2.2 J of primary energy in the form of natural gas have been found to be needed to produce 1 J of electricity [9]. In contrast, energy for heating can be obtained directly from the biogas produced. Applying these considerations to the energy balances makes the balance for the 30 8C even more advantageous to the 15 8C than shown in Fig. 4. At an operating temperature of 30 8C the energy balance was found to be nearly constant at OLRs of 13.1 kg VS m3 day1. However, since the methane production rate increased linearly when OLR was within this interval, running the reactor of an OLR of 3.1 kg VS m3 day1 would be utilizing the reactor at its optimal capacity. Because of the poorer energy balance obtained at 15 8C, a biogas plant with a well-insulated digester tank should always be run at 30 8C when used for the degradation of crop residues. The low level of subsidization provided in Sweden for the production and use of biogas and the small prot margins attainable in agriculture generally, may keep farmers from investing in the building of such tanks. However, digestion of crop residues at ambient temperature could be carried out in a rebuilt manure storage tank without heating. Such a tank could provide a net energy yield 60% of that attainable with use of a well isolated reactor run at 30 8C and 0.5 kg VS m3 day1. Rebuilding manure tanks to serve as digesters has been done at low cost and with good results [12,14,34]. Such a system would have to be run at a lower OLR however, and gas production would only be possible during the warm months of the year. For digesting the 85.7 tVS assumed to be available on the farm, a reactor volume of about 1170 m3 would be needed. The system would only be useful in producing energy for the farm if there were some way of using the gas produced during the summer months. One possible application would be to use the gas as vehicle fuel, although this would require rening it, which is expensive if carried out on a farm-scale [7]. The biogas could also be used for heating stables or (as is done in Italy [14]) in connection with on-farm diary-production. 5. Conclusions The methane yield of sugar beet tops and straw was found to decrease with decreasing temperature, but remained stable down to 11 8C at a HRT of 90 days. The highest yield was obtained at 30 8C. The optimal loading rates were found to be 1.6 and 3.3 kg VS m3 day1 at operational temperatures of 15 8C and 30 8C, respectively. Energy balances calculated theoretically for a farm-scale system showed that a process run at 30 8C resulted in a better energy balance than one run at 15 8C, due to of the lower yield obtained at 15 8C. The best net energy output was found to be obtained at an operational temperature of 30 8C and a loading rate of 3.1 kg VS m3 day1. An alternative low-cost solution,

64

I. Bohn et al. / Process Biochemistry 42 (2007) 5764 rnsson L, Murto M, Mattiasson B. Evaluation of parameters for [15] Bjo monitoring an anaerobic co-digestion process. Appl Microbiol Biotech 2000;54:8449. [16] APHA, AWWA, WPCF. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater Washington, DC, USA: APH Association; 1985. [17] Poggi-Varaldo HM, Oleszkiewicz JA. Anaerobic co-composting of municipal solid waste and waste sludge at high total solids levels. Environ Tech 1992;13:40921. [18] Grifn ME, McMahon KD, Mackie RI, Raskin L. Methanogenic population dynamics during start-up of anaerobic digesters treating municipal solid waste and biosolids. Biotechnol Bioeng 1998;57:34255. [19] Dalemo M. The ORWARE simulation model-Anaerobic digestion and sewage plant sub-models. Report No. 216. Uppsala, Sweden: Jordbrukstekniska Institutet, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet; 1996. ministeriet, Miljo ministeriets fo rordning om va rmeisolering. C4 Fin[20] Miljo mmelsesamling Miljo ministeriet, Bostads-och byggnadsavlands byggbesta delningen. Available at: http://www.nlex./data/normit/1931-C4r.pdf, 2002. , Ringmar A. Evaluation of an agricultural biogas m M, Nordberg A [21] Edstro plant at Hagavik. Report, Kretslopp & Avfall, No 31. Uppsala, Sweden: r jordbruks-och miljo teknik; 2005 [in Swedish]. JTI-Institut fo [22] Kalia AK, Kanwar SS. Temperature proles of biogas plants opreating under hilly conditions. Biol Wastes 1989;30:21724. [23] Nimmermark S. Unpublished measuring data for soil and air temperature Alnarp: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agricultural Biosystems and Technology, Division of Horticultural Building Technology; 1995. [24] Hawkes FR, Rosser BL, Hawkes DL, Statham M. Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry after passage through a mechnical separator: Factors affecting gas yield. Agric Wastes 1984;10:24156. [25] Bouallagui H, Haouari O, Touhami Y, Ben Cheikh R, Marouani L, Hamdi M. Effect of temperature on the performance of an anaerobic tubular reactor treating fruit and vegetable waste. Process Biochem 2004;39: 21438. [26] Kaparaju P, Rintala JA. Effects of temperature on post-methanation of digested diary cow manure in a farm-scale biogas production system. Environ Tech 2003;24:131521. grundlag af husdyrgdn[27] Jensen AP. Lavtemperatur biogasproduktion pa rhus Universitet, A rhus; ing. M.Sc. Thesis. Afd. for Mikrobiel kologi, A 1995 (in Danish). DI, Masse L. The effect of temperature on slaughterhouse waste[28] Masse water treatment in anaerobic sequencing batch reactors. Biores Tech 2001; 76:918. [29] Vavilin VA, Angelidaki I. Anaerobic degradation of solid material: Importance of initiation centers for methanogenesis, mixing intensity, and 2D distributed model. Biotech Bioeng 2005;89:11322. DI, Droste RL, Kennedy KJ, Patni NK, Munroe JA. Potential for the [30] Masse psychrophilic anaerobic treatment of swine manure using a sequencing batch reactor. Can Agric Eng 1997;39:2533. skalig biogas i norra Europa - en nula m M. Sma ges[31] Lindberg A, Edstro beskrivning Stockholm, Sweden: VBB VIAK and Jordbrukstekniska Institutet; 1998. rdsbaserad produktion av biogas fo r kraftva rme. M.Sc. [32] Lantz M. Ga Thesis. Lund, Sweden: Department of Technology and Society, Lund University; 2004 [in Swedish]. rdsbaserad biogas pa Plo nningen naturbruksgymnasium. [33] Nilsson S. Ga Report, Kretslopp & Avfall No. 21. Uppsala: Jordbrukstekniska Institutet; 2000 (in Swedish). [34] Sutter K, Egger K, Wellinger A. Psychrophilic methane production: a low rate but economically viable technique. In: Vesiroglu TN, editor. Alternative energy sources, vol. 7. Washington: Hemisphere; 1987. p. 8798.

which would yield a net energy output of 60% of that obtained for a well insulated digester tank run at 30 8C, would be to run the digestion at ambient temperature in a simple rebuilt manure tank. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Energy Agency. Damien J. Batstone is gratefully acknowledged for his professional guidance and advice. References
[1] Amon T, Hacki E, Jeremic D, Amon B, Boxberger J. Biogas production from animal wastes, energy plants and organic wastes. In: Velsen AFM, Verstraete WH, editors. Proceedings of Anaerobic Digestion 2001. Anaerobic conversion for sustainability. Antwerpen, Belgium: Technologisch Instituut vzw; 2001. p. 3816. [2] Brolin L, Lindberg A, Linders H, Cederberg C. Flows of organic waste: basis report for action plan waste. Report no. 4611. Stockholm, Sweden: rdsverket); 1996 [in Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturva Swedish]. , Lindberg A, Gruvberger, C, Lilja, T, Edstro m, M. Biogas[3] Nordberg A ggningar i Sverige. Report, Kretslopp & avfall, potential och framtida anla No. 17. Uppsala, Sweden: Jordbrukstekniska Insititutet, VBB Viak; 1998 [in Swedish]. [4] Hansson A, Christensson K. Biogas ger energi till ekologiskt lantbruk. Report. Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket); 2005 [in Swedish]. [5] Gunnarsson A, Gertssonn U, Bohn I. Anaerobically digested crop material for improved nitrogen efciency in a crop rotation with beetroot (Beta vulgaris var, Conditica Alef.). Acta Hort (ISHA) 2006;700:26770, www.actahort.org/books/700/700_46.htm. [6] Weiland P. Production and energetic use of biogas from energy crops and wastes in Germany. Appl Biochem Biotech 2003;109:26374. rnsson L. Biogas production from crop [7] Svensson LM, Christensson K, Bjo residues on a farm-scale level: Is it economically feasible under conditions in Sweden? Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 2005;28:13948. [8] Torres-Castillo R, Llabres-Luengo P, Mata-Alvarez J. Temperature effect on anaerobic digestion of bedding straw in a one phase system at different inoculum concentration. Agr Ecosyst Environ 1995;54:5566. rjesson P. Energy systems analysis of biogas systems. [9] Berglund M, Bo Report no. 44. Lund: Department of Technology and Society, Lund University; 2003 [in Swedish]. [10] Lusk PD. Comparative economic analysis: Anaerobic digester case study. Bioresour Technol 1991;36:2238. [11] Wellinger A, Kaufmann R. Psychrophilic methane generation from pig manure. Process Biochem 1982;2630. rd A. Nio a r med svensk biogas. Projekt 266 073-1 Biogsresultat [12] Ellega BG, Bioquest HB, Statens Energiverk; 1986 (Report, in Swedish). [13] Saey Jr LMJ, Westerman PW. Psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of animal manure: Proposed design methodology. Biol Wastes 1990;34: 13348. [14] Piccinini S, Fabbri C, Verzellesi F. Overview of anaerobic digestion plants for animal manure in Italy and a practical experience of an on-farm plant. In: Foo E-L, Della Senta T, editors. Proceedings of the Internet conference on integrated biosystems. 1998.